ArticleJAMA network open2026
Multicenter Prospective Validation of an Updated Proprietary Sepsis Prediction Model.
Article in JAMA network open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- AI-Based Sepsis Prediction in Hospitalized Adults: Systematic Review, Subgroup Meta-Analysis, and Contextual Analysis of Clinical Burden.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Testing Transferability of a Mortality Risk Model for Interhospital Transfer Using Real-World Electronic Health Records: External Validation and Model Enhancement.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of BIO-S and BIO-SC Composite Bioscores for 28-Day Mortality Stratification in Adults with Sepsis and Septic Shock.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Patient Versus Prediction-Level Evaluation of a Dynamic Clinical Prediction Model of Sepsis.Research square · 2026Article
- Patient Versus Prediction-Level Evaluation of a Dynamic Clinical Prediction Model of Sepsis.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Lifecycle answerability for artificial intelligence-enabled medical device software: a regulatory science perspective.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Detecting infection after trauma: why clinical context still matters.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: The Epic Sepsis Model version 2 (ESM v2) is a widely implemented proprietary sepsis prediction model, but no multicenter, external validation of its performance has been reported to guide adoption and use. Objective: To conduct a multicenter validation of the ESM v2 to compare performance against the original ESM v1, outline differences across heterogenous clinical sites, and compare model performance against clinician recognition of sepsis. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prognostic study included adult inpatient encounters at 4 large US health systems between August 31, 2023, and March 11, 2025. At each site, data were collected for a consecutive period immediately following new model implementation. Data were analyzed from July 23 to August 19, 2025. Main Outcomes and Measures: Sepsis was defined using Sepsis-3 clinical consensus criteria. Model discrimination was assessed using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) at the encounter level and prediction level with 4-hour, 12-hour, and hospitalization-wide time horizons. Performance against clinician recognition of sepsis was measured using antibiotics, lactate, and body culture orders. Results: Of 227 091 inpatient encounters, 7401 (3.3%; median [IQR] age, 65 [54-75] years; 3359 [45.4%] female; 2.7% Asian; 24.6% Black; 64.6% White; 7.1% Hispanic ethnicity) met sepsis criteria and 219 690 (96.7%; median [IQR] age, 48 [33-65] years; 123 563 [56.2%] female; 2.5% Asian; 38.8% Black; 49.6% White; 9.6% Hispanic ethnicity) did not. At the encounter level, the AUROC ranged from 0.82 (95% CI, 0.81-0.83) to 0.92 (95% CI, 0.92-0.93) across study sites. At the prediction level with a 12-hour time horizon, the AUROC ranged from 0.75 (95% CI, 0.74-0.75) to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.85-0.85). Comparison against clinician recognition of sepsis yielded a minor decrease in performance, with the resulting encounter-level AUROC ranging from 0.80 (95% CI, 0.79-0.81) to 0.90 (95% CI, 0.89-0.90) across sites. Positive predictive values remained low, from 0.13 (95% CI, 0.13-0.14) to 0.26 (95% CI, 0.25-0.27), with a high number needed to evaluate and high alert burden. Conclusions and Relevance: In this prognostic study of a new sepsis prediction model, a multicenter prospective validation performed across 4 major US health systems found improved discrimination for the early prediction of sepsis but noted high institutional variability, low positive predictive value, and high alert burden.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.